Appeal No. 1999-1517
Application No. 08/837,523
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for nonobviousness distinctions over the
prior art."); In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936, 152 USPQ 247,
254 (CCPA 1967)("This court has uniformly followed the sound
rule that an issue raised below which is not argued in that
court, even of it has been properly brought here by reason of
appeal is regarded as abandoned and will not be considered.
It is our function as a court to decide disputed issues, not
to create them.”).
The examiner at pages 4 and 5 of the answer states that
“it would have been obvious . . . to form an insulating layer
between the source/drain/gate regions and the substrate in the
primary reference of Byun et al. as disclosed by Ehinger et
al. because this would allow for better control over the depth
and the concentration of the source/drain/gate regions.”
Appellants argue (brief at page 5) that “nowhere in the Byun
reference is the possible diffusion of ions into the gate
electrode discussed or even suggested.” The examiner’s
response, page 5 of the answer is that “[a]pplicant appears to
admit on page 5, lines
19-21, that gate electrode 23 will inherently be doped to some
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007